The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:29pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
NFHS Casebook Play Confusion.

Ladies and Germs (oops, I meant Gentlemen) I submit for your consideration two Casebook Plays from the 2012-13 NFHS Casebook.



Casebook Play 3.4.3 SITUATION C found on Pages 3 and 22 of the Casebook. This Play was just added to the Casebook this year.

CBP 3.4.3C: Starter, A1, has brought the wrong uniform and with 8 minutes on the clock prior to the start of the game, switches with A15 and now is wearing a legal jersey but a new number. With 2 minutes on the clock prior to the start of the game, it is discovered that starter, B1, is wearing a different jersey than indicated in the scorebook. It is confirmed that a wrong number was provided to the official scorer and a change is made to reflect the correct number in the scorebook.
RULING: Both Team A and B are charged with a technical foul for changing a number in the scorebook and will begin the game with one team foul toward the bonus. No free throws are awarded and the game will begin at the point of interruption, which is the opening jump ball.
COMMENT: When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time.” (R4-S19-A8b; R4-S36- A2c; R10-S1-A2) (See CBP 6.4.1 SITUATION A.)


Casebook Play 6.4.1 SITUATION F on Page 53 of the Casebook. You should also look a CBP 6.4.1A on Page 52 of the Casebook.

CBP 6.4.1F: A team member of Team A is detected dunking about five minutes before the game and a team member of B does the same thing about a minute later.
RULING: The game will start with administration of the technical-foul free throws in the order in which the fouls were called. Team B shoots first followed by Team A. Team A will then be given the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the table. When the thrower of Team A is bounced the ball or it is placed at his/her disposal, the possession arrow will be set pointing toward Team B's basket. (R4-S3; R7-S5-A6a)



I would like to draw your attention to the RULINGS of both CBP 3.4.3C and 6.4.1F as well as the COMMENT of CBP 3.4.3C. You will see that the RULINGS are completely opposite of each other even these two Plays are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

CBP 6.4.1F's RULING is the correct RULING and is also the correct RULING for CBP 3.4.3C. CBP 3.4.3C's COMMENT cannot not be supported by Rule.

I would like to ask the esteemed members of the Forum the following question: How can two identical Casebook Plays have completely opposite RULINGS? Do not bother to answer because it is a rhetorical question. I already know the answer to my question: (1) Nobody in Indianapolis bothers to do any due diligence with respect to research; and (2) whoever wrote CBP 3.4.3C is ignorant of the Rules of Basketball.

Let me add that if the Rules Committee would like all TF's committed during the pregame period to be offsetting TF's as in Fighting Fouls, then that is a rule change I would whole hardily endorse. No one wants to start the game with a series of free throws being shot at both ends of the court. But one cannot just write a Casebook RULING just to fulfill one's wishes. That said, have at it ladies and gentlemen, let the discussion begin.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 01:59pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
I don't think they conflict.

The dunks are distinctive unsportsmanlike acts that happen at specific and different times and are penalized in the order of occurrence.

The administrative changes, as I read it, happen for both teams at the same time....effectively just before tip-off or effectively as the clock turned 10:00.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust View Post
I don't think they conflict.

The dunks are distinctive unsportsmanlike acts that happen at specific and different times and are penalized in the order of occurrence.

The administrative changes, as I read it, happen for both teams at the same time....effectively just before tip-off or effectively as the clock turned 10:00.
I agree and my logic followed the same thought process.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:26pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Administrative TFs are no different than anyother TFs. It is obvious from the reading of CBP 3.4.3C that the TFs occured and very different times and were reported at the time each change was made which means that the foul is a False Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
Administrative TFs are no different than anyother TFs. It is obvious from the reading of CBP 3.4.3C that the TFs occured and very different times and were reported at the time each change was made which means that the foul is a False Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.
Except that the cases say otherwise. So why not just accept what they are saying and go with it?

They are giving us a way to handle multiple administrative T's on both teams with explicit instructions. Doesn't have to make sense but it works for me.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 04:46pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
Except that the cases say otherwise. So why not just accept what they are saying and go with it?

They are giving us a way to handle multiple administrative T's on both teams with explicit instructions. Doesn't have to make sense but it works for me.

deecee:

The problem with CBP 3.4.3C is that its RULING cannot be supported by Rule. It is just wishful thinking by the person who wrote the Play for it to be considered a Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
deecee:

The problem with CBP 3.4.3C is that its RULING cannot be supported by Rule. It is just wishful thinking by the person who wrote the Play for it to be considered a Double Foul.

MTD, Sr.
Mark,

I'm unclear what you are trying to prove. The case play gives specific instructions on what to do here? If it's not consistent, ok, but also why should I care. There are specific rulings when certain actions occur. I will just follow what they say.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:32pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
Mark,

I'm unclear what you are trying to prove. The case play gives specific instructions on what to do here? If it's not consistent, ok, but also why should I care. There are specific rulings when certain actions occur. I will just follow what they say.

deecee:

Did the TFs in CBP 6.4.1F occur at the approximately the same time? No they didn't therefore they are not a DF but instead consitute a FDF.

Did the TFs in CBP 3.4.3C occur at the approximately the same time? No they didn't therefore they are not a DF but instead consitute a FDF.

The author of CBP 3.4.3C wishes that the TFs happened at approximately the same time but they did not. The author can wish all he wants but the TFs did not at approximately the same time and therefore are not a DF.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Let me reiterate: If the Rules Committee would like all TF's committed during the pregame period to be offsetting TF's as in Fighting Fouls, then that is a rule change I would whole hardily endorse. No one wants to start the game with a series of free throws being shot at both ends of the court. But one cannot just write a Casebook RULING just to fulfill one's wishes. That said, have at it ladies and gentlemen, let the discussion begin.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 05:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
Mark,

I'm not disagreeing with you and how you read the case plays. I'm just saying that there is explicit instructions on how to handle this and that it doesn't have to make sense. Just for the record "one" did write a casebook ruling and got his/hers wishes fulfilled.

hopefully the came with lots of chocolate with macadamia nuts.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 06:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by deecee View Post
Mark,

I'm unclear what you are trying to prove. The case play gives specific instructions on what to do here? If it's not consistent, ok, but also why should I care. There are specific rulings when certain actions occur. I will just follow what they say.

Okay, you don't care. Fine. Then why are you continuing to argue the point?

The comment states, "When each team is assessed one technical foul prior to the game, a double technical foul has occurred, as this is considered “approximately the same time.”

It doesn't say this only applies to administrative technicals. I don't care which way they go but there needs to be consistency. If not, then one of these plays is an exception. And we all know the Fed hates exceptions.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 06:21pm
We don't rent pigs
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 7,627
The obvious difference, whether it is or should be significant or not, is that one case involves team fouls, while the other involves player fouls.
__________________
I swear, Gus, you'd argue with a possum.
It'd be easier than arguing with you, Woodrow.


Lonesome Dove
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 06:32pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref View Post
The obvious difference, whether it is or should be significant or not, is that one case involves team fouls, while the other involves player fouls.

Read the definition of Double Fouls (both DPF and DTF). There is not distinction between fouls committed and charged to a Player as opposed to fouls committed and charged to a Team. The two fouls in both CBPs did not occur at the approximately the same time and yet the author of CBP 3.4.3C wants the two fouls to be considered as happening at approximately the same time even though that interpretation is not supported by rule.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Ohio High School Athletic Association
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 06:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
The main question that needs to be addressed is when do administrative T's occur. It seems that they are indicating that administrative T's effectively occur as the game is about to begin, not when they decide to correct the numbers...and that they are to be treated as a double T.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 07:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,505
bktball - I appreciate your flippant response. I'm just trying to figure out why, when there is an explicit ruling, what does a discussion solve?

Will any answer we come up with change anything? I doubt it, it will just create possible confusion as someone who comes on and reads the forum could misapply a rule (that of course is a bit contradictory) that has an explicit ruling based on what happens.

I'm just curios what conclusion we can come up with on this forum that would trump the ruling in the casebook to a very specific set of circumstances whether or not they are contradictory or not is besides the point.

In once case they address double T's for administrative purposes and in the other they address double T's on players.

I'm just trying to keep the facts clear whereas any possible discussion here would only lead to hypothetical solutions and conjecture as the facts here don't leave much wiggle room. Just what I gathered from reading these 2 case plays.

And to your point bktball, I agree that it would be "nice" for them to be consistent and pick one way or another. But until that happens it looks like we have pretty clear direction here, as convoluted and muddy as it may be.
__________________
in OS I trust
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 10, 2012, 08:45pm
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 22,934
Do You Expect The NFHS Editor To Actually Edit Something ???

I hate it when casebook plays seem to contradict an actual rule. When given a choice, I usually go with the casebook play, due to it's specificity. That being said, I see where Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. is coming from (You guys can't realize how difficult it is for me to agree, to even partially agree, with Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.), and would prefer that casebook plays always match the actual wording of the rule, as written.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASA 2009 Casebook Play Confusion SergioJ Softball 14 Thu Mar 12, 2009 05:09pm
NFHS 2008-09 Casebook Play 2.10.1 Situation D Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Basketball 4 Fri Dec 05, 2008 01:17pm
1st year confusion about plays in Casebook cdoug Football 3 Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:16pm
NFHS Lodged ball - casebook plays Carl Childress Baseball 27 Thu Dec 23, 2004 03:19pm
NFHS Casebook Jaysef Football 5 Tue Aug 17, 2004 03:34pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1